Judgment : 1. This revision petition is filed against orders dated 13.10.2010 and 28.03.2011, directing the petitioner to deposit the proper court fee calculated on the basis of valuation fixed i.e. 1.5 lac. 2. According to the petitioner, he filed a suit for partition in OS no. 60/Civil and the 6th defendant raised a plea including, as to whether the plaintiff has properly valued the suit for court fee and jurisdiction and thereafter he filed an application for rejection of the plaint or in the alternative prayed for direction to the plaintiff to deposit the court fee as per the value of the suit in OS no. 60/Civil. The trial Court ( learned Second Additional District Judge, Jammu) by order dated 13.10.2010 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the proper court fee calculated on the basis of valuation fixed by him i.e. 1.5 lac and the court fee was directed to be deposited before the next date of hearing. The petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the said order which was also rejected by the trial Court on 28.03.2011. Both these orders are challenged before this Court in the civil revision, contending that Section 7 (iv) (b) of the Court Fee Act clearly states that to enforce a right to share in joint family property- to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, the Court fee shall be paid under Section 7 (iv) (b)- and the said provision does not apply to a suit for partition by metes and bounds. According to the petitioner, he has to pay the Court fee according to his share at the time when decree is passed and this Court has already given a judgment in the judgment reported in 1988 KLJ 600 (Triloki Nath Kotha v. Jawahir Lal Kotha and ors) wherein a specific issue was raised with regard to the payment of Court fee in a suit for partition i.e. “whether suit has to be valued on the entire property or to the extent of the share claimed”, and this Court held that valuation and Court fee is required to be fixed according to the share claimed. According to the petitioner the said judgment was not considered by the trial Court and, therefore, the direction issued by the trial Court to pay the Court fee is unsustainable. 3. According to the petitioner the said judgment was not considered by the trial Court and, therefore, the direction issued by the trial Court to pay the Court fee is unsustainable. 3. Even though notice was served to the respondents, no one has chosen to appear on the date when the matter was heard on 20.02.2015 and the matter being covered by the said judgment, counsel for the respondents was given a chance to appear. 4. Today also there is no representation, therefore, this Court is deciding the matter on merits. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed by the petitioner for partition by metes and bounds of his share. In a partition suit how the suit has to be valued was already considered by this Court in the decision reported as 1988 KLJ 600 wherein the learned Single Judge, by following the judgments of Madras High Court reported in AIR 1947 Mad. 273, AIR 1953: Pat: 342, AIR 1979 Orissa 71, AIR 1962 Bombay 4 and AIR 1944 Privy Council 65, held that in a case of simple partition suit the plaintiff has to value his suit for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction and Court fee to the extent of his share claimed out of the joint family property. The decision of this Court in 1988 KLJ 600 (supra) is holding the field insofar as this Court is concerned. 6. Applying the said ratio laid down in the said judgment, which I also respectfully concur, the orders of the trial Court are set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall pay the required Court fee after the decree is passed determining his share. 7. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.